All I can say is Rosie O’Donnell’s mask is slipping. Rosie was so motivated by an article in the Gay City News written by contributing writer Brendan Keane, that on June 4, she cross-posted it on her own site. By posting the article, Rosie at least tacitly approved of its content, and thus Keane’s anti-military stance gives some insight into who Rosie really believes are the terrorists as well as what she thinks about the military she claimed to love while on “The View.” She didn’t condemn or correct any of the negative comments about the US armed forces, like this one, which indicate that she was indeed questioning the military’s morality (emphasis mine throughout):

O’Donnell’s pacifism is ridiculed when it questions the morality of the American military and of the decision-makers that send young people to kill and die in America’s name.

Thanks for finally admitting it, Rosie. I’m sure if she disagreed with any of this article, she would have said so, instead of proudly posting it on her website and thanking the person who pointed it out to her. As for the “decision-makers that send young people to kill and die in America’s name,” Rosie and Keane must really hate Franklin D. Roosevelt, the OG of evil fascist warmongers.

Geoff Dickens noted that last weekend's CNBC's Tim Russert show featured NBC diplomatic correspondent Andrea Mitchell being anything but diplomatic in asserting that the Republican base is eagerly in favor of torture, and that conservative answers are not "thoughtful" answers. David Gregory said the Republicans will have to come around and propose a plan to withdraw from Iraq, to which Mitchell replied:

But you saw the way they responded to the hard questions about torture in the Republican debate in South Carolina. They came up with easy -- and hard-to-defend in a general election campaign -- answers. They just played to the base. They played to, 'Let's torture 'em! Let's-' I mean, they, they didn't say that literally, but that was the subliminal message, and also, 'Let's, you know, expand, double the size of Guantanamo,' said, said Mitt Romney. I mean they are absolutely not giving thoughtful answers, as you would suggest, on those tough questions.

The next time someone tells you that there aren’t any liberals in the media, make sure to point out the following to said person.

Former WCBS TV (New York) and KCBS TV (Los Angeles) anchorwoman Bree Walker is buying Cindy Sheehan’s Camp Casey near President Bush’s ranch in Crawford, Texas.

For those unfamiliar with Walker, she is now a "progressive" talk radio host on Air America’s affiliate KTLK in Los Angeles.

As reported by the Associated Press:

Original caption:

U.S. Senator and Presidential candidate Barack Obama (D-IL) laughs with CNN host Soledad O'Brien during at a Presidential forum on faith, values and poverty at the George Washington University in Washington, June 4, 2007.

Rep. William Jefferson (D-Louisiana) was ordered by a U.S. district judge to surrender his firearms Friday. Yet, media outlets that reported this ignored the delicious irony inherent in the Congressman’s anti-gun positions throughout his career.

As reported by the Associated Press Friday (h/t Marc Sheppard, emphasis added): “As conditions for his release, U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III denied the Congressman access to shotguns and rifles in his Louisiana home.”

ABCNews.com also reported this interesting revelation (emphasis added):

On Thursday, a NewsBusters headline asked “G-8 Statement Regarding Climate Change: Will Media Use It to Bash Bush?”

The answer: Most definitely.

From print to television, the formal declaration published by the group of eight most developed nations emanating from their summit in Germany was depicted as a winner for the host country’s chancellor Angela Merkel, while George W. Bush was the big meanie standing in the way of progress against the liberal bogeyman known as global warming.

For instance, NBC’s David Gregory said the following on Thursday’s “Nightly News”:

Longtime readers of The Wall Street Journal's editorial pages know three things:

• The paper's editorials and opinion columns are usually among the best anywhere -- and not just on business and economics.
• The Journal has for years had every reason to be proud of the fact, as the late Robert Bartley noted, that it is one of the few papers readers would buy for its opinion pages.
• The Journal has, for 23 years, held an uncompromising "liberal" viewpoint on immigration that almost all conservatives have long since abandoned. The Journal's point of view can be summed up in five words it used in a July 3, 1984 editorial -- "There shall be open borders."

A copy of that editorial, posted for fair use and discussion purposes only, can be found here (the title is "In Defense of Huddled Masses") in a post about Journal columnist Peggy Noonan's effective break on June 1 from The Journal's doctrinaire stance.

The 1984 editorial's defining sentence is:

If Washington still wants to "do something" about immigration, we propose a five-word constitutional amendment: There shall be open borders.

For general chat and discussion..

"Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." - George Wallace, from his 1963 inaugural speech as Governor of Alabama.

"No amnesty today, no amnesty tomorrow, no amnesty ever." - New York Times editorial, June 9th, 2007, describing opponents of the proposed immigration law.

If you oppose the proposed immigration law that, "pathway to citizenship" aside, would immediately give legal status to millions of illegal immigrants, you're not merely wrong. In the eyes of the New York Times, you're a knuckle-dragging nativist, no better than hard-core segregationists of the Jim Crow era.

That is the message of A Failure of Leadership, the Times' editorial of today, lamenting the collapse Thursday in the Senate of the immigration bill.

This one is really stretching the limits of any legitimate blame being leveled at Fred Thompson, but the L.A.Times has published a story linking Thompson to businessman with a shady past over a radio advertisement that the Senator narrates for that businessman's company. But, as we find out, Thompson's ABC Radio contract requires that he and other ABC Radio personalities act as narrator for the radio spot, so it isn't like Fred has gone out of his way to endorse this shady businessman's product. Naturally, the L.A. Times has to title the piece "An Awkward Ad By Fred Thompson", even as the Senator barely has a walk on part in the article. Most of the article ends up being about the company that the ad was recorded for and not Thompson. So, the light is shined on Thompson even as the story is not really about him much at all.

"What Isn’t His Fault?"

On Wednesday’s "Situation Room," liberal anchor Jack Cafferty argued that, perhaps, it's President Bush, not Vladimir Putin, who is attempting to reignite the Cold War. However, Cafferty might want to consider the fact that fewer pesky journalists seem to mysteriously disappear in the United States than they do in Russia.

A Left Wing GOP? That’s the Ticket to Success!

During this week’s Republican debate, CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer had a suggestion for the national GOP: Be more like liberal Arnold Schwarzenegger. Now, this is an idea he’s peddled four times since the midterm elections. Isn’t it sweet when left-wing journalists offer advice to the Republican Party?

"You Just KNEW This Was Coming"

Speaking of liberal cable hosts, Keith Olbermann suggested this week that the unraveling of a terror plot at JFK airport was politically timed to help the Bush administration. Yes, Keith, and the Paris Hilton media soap opera is a cover by the White House to distract from the immigration debacle.

The new books by liberal-media stars investigating Hillary Clinton are already drawing the annoying accusation from the Clintonistas that they’re sexist, and then their media supporters are backing them up on the charge. The liberal media attacks their own. On last weekend’s chat shows, the trend was apparent. On The Chris Matthews Show, Chris adopted a confessional I-may-be-a-pig tone with Cynthia Tucker of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, this year’s (liberal) winner of the Pulitzer Prize for Commentary:

MATTHEWS: Cynthia, the question, I think, somewhere in the middle of this--and this may be sexist, I don't deny it--but is the charge that she's calculating, that they're calculating together, a little too much planning, this two presidency following two presidencies, this 20-year plan, so-called, does this hurt?

TUCKER: I don't think it hurts with those people who would support Senator Hillary Clinton for president. They're--she's a very divisive figure. There are already a lot of Americans who would never vote for Senator Clinton, with or without a book being written, or books being written which rehash all the old assumptions about her.

Having said that, let me also point out that it is sexist to charge a woman with being ambitious.

Forget about Nancy Pelosi's son Paul, or Diana Feinstein's husbands companies and her involvement. According to the AP it's the CA republicans that have all the problems. Following is a recent AP story headline.

Ethics Cloud Over California Republicans

Jun 9 04:22 AM US/Eastern
By ERICA WERNER
Associated Press Writer

The article mentions that at least 6 house republicans have attracted the attention of federal investigators and four are from california.

The story states that "The ethics cloud is discouraging the party faithful who've already watched the GOP shrink to minority status in California."

I guess thats the intention of the articles headline.

I haven't seen the AP headlines about Paul Pelosi's new $180,000 a year "part time job" with no experience, or the pentagon contracts awarded to Dian Feinsteins husbands controlled companies while she sat on the Senate committees that controlled the pentagon's funds.

On Friday's The Situation Room, CNN's Jack Cafferty used his regular "Cafferty File" segment to attack President Bush for not reappointing Joint Chiefs Chairman Peter Pace out of fear of a tough confirmation hearing, tagging it a "gutless" decision. At about 5:08 p.m., as Cafferty set up his regular question of the hour about what it would take to end the war in Iraq, he lashed out at the absence of greater outrage from the American people, and suggested that American troops have "died for nothing" as he seemed to wish for the kind of protests of the Vietnam War era, which included "students tearing up college campuses," to happen again. Cafferty: "When it was going this poorly in Vietnam, Americans were in the streets demanding to be heard. Students were tearing up college campuses in an effort to head off being sent away to die for nothing. But not this time -- 3,503 U.S. troops have been killed in Iraq, and nobody does anything. ... It's no wonder the Bush White House gets away with this stuff." (Transcript follows)